Davias v. Social Security Administration

First Circuit

Davias v. Social Security Administration

82 F. App'x 710

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedDecember 24, 2003

DocketNo. 03-1376

StatusPublished

This text of 82 F. App'x 710 (Davias v. Social Security Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davias v. Social Security Administration, 82 F. App'x 710 (1st Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed substantially for the reasons recited in the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation dated January 22, 2003, which was subsequently adopted by the district judge. We add that neither below nor on appeal has plaintiff set forth “a general scenario which, if proven, would entitle [him] to relief against the defendants] on some cognizable theory.” Hatch v. Dep’t for Children, Youth & Families, 274 F.3d 12, 19 (1st Cir.2001). See, e.g., Brown v. Newberger, 291 F.3d 89, 92 (1st Cir.2002) (explaining why claims against state agency would fail); Monahan v. Dorchester Counseling Center, Inc., 961 F.2d 987, 994-95 (1st Cir.1992) (concluding that Restatement of Bill of Rights for Mental Health Patients, 42 U.S.C. § 10841, “creates no enforceable federal rights”) (footnote omitted). The district court thus did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs request to amend his complaint on the ground of futility.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed substantially for the reasons recited in the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation dated January 22, 2003, which was subsequently adopted by the district judge. We add that neither below nor on appeal has plaintiff set forth “a general scenario which, if proven, would entitle [him] to relief against the defendants] on some cognizable theory.” Hatch v. Dep’t for Children, Youth & Families, 274 F.3d 12, 19 (1st Cir.2001). See, e.g., Brown v. Newberger, 291 F.3d 89, 92 (1st Cir.2002) (explaining why claims against state agency would fail); Monahan v. Dorchester Counseling Center, Inc., 961 F.2d 987, 994-95 (1st Cir.1992) (concluding that Restatement of Bill of Rights for Mental Health Patients, 42 U.S.C. § 10841, “creates no enforceable federal rights”) (footnote omitted). The district court thus did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs request to amend his complaint on the ground of futility.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 F. App'x 710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davias-v-social-security-administration-ca1-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack